The funny thing is that the cameraphone ranking starts at the Nokia 808, which was a massive leap ahead of the previous cameraphones in terms of image quality. If they'd started with anything much before that the difference in the results would be staggering!

I think Scott Adams described this perfectly, without ever naming it directly:http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-12-25http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-12-26http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-12-27http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-12-28

vadims: The following image was on the front page of Thom Hogan's site for several weeks up until few days ago:

http://www.bythom.com/_Media/bythom_int_ecuador_gal_11_med_hr-2.jpeg

It was taken using Nikon 70-300mm AF-P, and Thom challenged anyone to call it "not sharp"... Well, it does seem to be sharp, but that bokeh!!.. I'd take Gaussian blur over those mirror lens-style rings any day.

I wish the term "fake bokeh" is put to rest one day. Call it "simulated" or "computational" (or invent a new, shorter term other then "fake").

Bokeh quality of many shots taken with my Mate 9 matches or exceeds that of shots taken with conventional lenses. Yes, sometimes there are issues (sometimes even big issues), but look at the above-mentioned shot... It's time to do mobile phones' cameras some justice, esp. now that their quality improves with every iteration.

I've been a long time Canon shooter (5D2 being my last), but nothing in your current range appealed, so I've gone over to Sony. I'm not alone. I may be back in three years time, but you'll have to do something pretty spectacular to win me back!